This blog entry is in English. Yet English is not my native language (Italian is), so have some indulgence with typos or grammatical mistakes. Also, I have been told that I write complex things - whether this is good or bad I don't know: but so, if you are unfamiliar with articulated prose you may see grammatical errors not only where there could be some, but also where just a prose you're not acquainted with is. Native speakers with an A+ grade in english said my english, obviously not perfect, imports no major issues. Lend a deaf ear to the errors, vocally disagree with my thesis whenever you want, but enjoy the style all the while.
Reading back this writing again after some time, I realize some conditions in my way of thinking have undergone a change, and certainly some in my Masonic experience have; and it would be uncomely if a mind would never modify its assumptions, at least as much uncomely as it would be a mind that modifies them unceasingly, accordingly to conveniences and deference to circumstances: and of these persons you always find a few everywhere.
So, though not acknowledging anymore a few of my conclusions, in this work something good can still be found; a few notes have depth of insight, others are naive; as Hemingway once wrote (but guarding myself from promoting a comparison so clearly untenable, both as far as talent and greatness of mind are concerned): "I hope that you will find some that you like (...) because if you did not like them you would not publish them (...) I would like to live long enough to write three more novels and twenty-five more stories. I know some pretty good ones"
I am hoping that this auspice may compensate the weakness of this writing that, on certain days, appears to me as the weakest among the ones I have written about freemasonry; and indeed it might gain strength and find its proper collocation only when conceived as an integration to other things I wrote over time - if it weren't that the opera omnia of a stranger is still the opera omnia of nothing, and namely null: nobody can be almost famous.
Despite being a bad actor treading the stage, I am acquainted with the virtue and the vice that Anglo-Saxon laws prescribe to the good American attorney: my causes, I defend them with zeal; and in disproportion, proportion.
It is like a fighter that puts his hearth in his fight: thence I may often appear more presidential than the president, and mean with a might four intensity what I actually mean with might three intensities - yet never with might zero.
Because your thesis, either you defend it well, or do not entertain any at all - and let's forget about it.
At the same time, as Saint Just * said that «None governs with impunity», in that very same manner no one can participate and yet make no errors. Only that who never participates, is never mistaken.
Besides, what magisterially qualifies a Mater Mason is his (her) capacity to express his dissent. Because if a Master Mason is afraid of speaking up (and when ought you be scared of speaking up, if not when you have to express dissent?), he is little more than an Entered Apprentice: he is an Entered Apprentice who has been conferred with the right to speak, which he uses not: therefore, by all measures, he is still an Entered Apprentice.
It goes without saying that there subsists a difference between dissent and contestation: a bidirectional difference indeed, namely affecting both those who cover up their contestation under the ensigns of the right to free speech, and those who are all to ready to rubricate whatever dissent under the category of contestation, speculating with cavils on handles that are not there but that, by force of arguing that they would have been there, you may still hope they may end up materializing themselves.
In fact democracy is not defined as that system where conflict is absent. On the contrary, democracy is exactly that system that admits conflict, and even institutionalizes it. It is autocracies, and not democracies, that allow no dissent.
And since Free Masonry not only lives under democracy, but it built it (it is all too convenient for detractors to address constantly deviant issues like, in Italy at least, Gelli * forgetting that in Free Masonry there were Giuseppe Garibaldi * and George Washington too, to name but a couple that answer for all), dissent belongs to it.
Belonging to it tolerance too, the only constraint that may be put to the expression of dissent is the constraint that more extols and ennobles it: your dissent, you must expound it, and place it in a perspective that admits discussion and dialogue.
But if you are a Master Mason, you are a Master Mason exactly inasmuch as you participate, and you participate by thinking and speaking, and not by being Sitting Bull.
And if you are not ready to voice your opinion also when everyone else feels differently than you, then you are a Master in nothing: you are exactly like anyone else.
It is paramount not to overrate men: all too often they aren't but the courtiers of their own emotions.
And least of all it may be needed to lend too attentive an ear to their opinions: all too frequently they aren't but the secretaries saddled with the burden of compiling the formal declarations that unbounded appetites relinquish.
Whenever we persevere contradicting our interlocutor, we are implicitly crediting him/her with two prerogatives that it isn't self evident at all that he/she is endowed with: the confidence in what he says, and the mastering of what he professes: «The others are intolerant with us because they believe we are free and credit worthy in the opinions we express against theirs: flattering, isn't it?» (Henri Laborit * ).
Everybody is convinced that he/she has attained the conclusive interpretation on life, or at least that he would be the owner of the most plausible one. Very characteristically, such persuasion does not belong to the most sophisticated interpretations, but to the most rudimentary ones, that exactly because they are reductive may be supposed to have reached the irreducible, and may presume to have gained hold of the prestige of the essential because the elementary level to which they stick can be so easily mistaken for it.
I am not referring here to a predilection for simplicity, which is not only legitimate but it may even be one of the major vehicles and synonyms of intellectual honesty.
Rather, I am referring to that conceptual asset accordingly to which whenever you abide by the elementary prototypes and by the the most prosaic pulsions of man composed of hunger vanity and vileness, then you would also have been in the presence of realism. Therefore what needs to be clarified is that cynicism (apotheosis of every realism), with its velleities of pre-eminence against idealism, is not superior to the latter in the least, neither as far as the much augured authentic interpretation of reality nor as far as a pragmatic vision of the world may be concerned.
Cynicism (namely realism, misunderstood) is, at all effects, a form of raving, perfectly equivalent to that of the most relentless idealism and of the most fanatic utopias: it entirely rests upon a totally arbitrary and false vision of man, and by all measures it is mere fiction.
To postulate, in fact that man is made only of food and Mercedes, Mercedes and food, is as much misleading as reputing man as constituted only of dreams and soul, soul and dreams.
Whatever interpretation thus shaped that awaits humankind reactivity to be displayed uniquely as a feedback to physical needs, is bound to crash (and yet not without having first inflicted with diligence all the implied catastrophes) against the incontrovertible fact that there will always appear not only single instances of the human species but whole groups and whole situations that will never be fit to be dealt with, even in the least, without surrendering to the evidence that they relate to exigencies and needs that want different instruments than Mercedes and food, Mercedes and food.
And this is no opinion, but a fact. It is cynicism that is an opinion: one like many others.
And when it is held that with maturity you certainly land in cynicism, it is perfectly suited for the apostles of this theorem the following magnificent excerpt by Kierkegaard * :«The issue stands as follows: with age man arrives with certainty to nothing: with age maybe he loses that tidbit of passion, of sentiment, of fantasy, that tidbit of inferiority that he had, and certainly arrives (for here you certainly arrive) to understand life under the determinations of vulgarity. This "improved" state, that indeed has arrived with age, man desperately considers a good»Particularly saddening the opposite case, increasingly frequent in the opulence of industrial societies, when it happens that it is precisely the younger who hosts cynical beliefs, whilst the elder, maybe for no other reason than the fact they have already bumped long enough their heads against these ancient walls, have on the contrary distempered them.
To these young men, spoiled beyond measure (for their cynicism does not derive from the fact they have molded themselves as gladiators against the adverse flings and arrows of life, but from mere vice: namely exactly from the fact that they have been spared the blows) what is more becoming is another excerpt by Henri Laborit:«It is a culture without structure and everybody may pick the pieces that better suit his gratification. In these conditions, it is very unlikely that you my incur in real contradictions, fit to generate anguish and yet creativity too. And how could it be otherwise, if the mechanisms that make man capable of seeing, feeling, thinking, the keys to a man's behaviour of attraction and repulse namely to those that are called his choices, have been hidden to him under the pillow and he never made his own bed because that was his mother's business?»Given these premises, certainly not anthropological and that yet do not describe an inferior ethical path, what chrisms one may evince so that operative conclusions may be drawn?
For isn't it true that the crossroad that joins these dualisms is placed here: premises must be speculative, and must be followed with operative conclusions? Or should we give credit to Oscar Wilde "You may impose anything to society, except a consequence". But: "only when thoughts match actions and actions match thoughts, only then you have men cast in one mold" (Feuerbach * ).
Neither you may want operability without speculation: Confucius, presenting a syllogism worth of a refined mandarin, stated: "Studying without thinking is useless, thinking without studying dangerous"
It is not true, in fact, that operative Freemasonry does not exist, as even some masons uphold: it exists indeed.
Go see the ritual and the oath in the ninth chamber of the Scottish Rite.
Although the Scottish Rite constitutes just an option among the many available to masons that want to join a Chamber of Perfection, this rite is far from being an insulated oasis set apart from the overall corpus of the Masonic light. The Scottish Rite is an inestimable and collective patrimony of the Universal Freemasonry regardless of the blue rituals you attend, and as such it is fit to provide trustworthy traversal indications about the Masonic identity, which defines and belongs to all Freemasons, independently of their specific collocation in the Obedience.
Therefore read the ritual in the ninth degree and quiver, and wonder with incredulity: and once read, whoever may maintain that Operative Freemasonry is a delusion that must not exist, should exclaim like Job that disputed with the word of the Lord: "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."
I cannot stand up and raise before a lodge and declare: since Freemasonry may be operative, well then be learned that either Freemasonry shall be operative, or it shall be not, and whoever shall not abide by operative measures will be no true Mason but an outcast. Such a pretension would be simply unacceptable, puerile, wrong, insulting, and maybe even to be sanctioned.
Rather, I may say that I exhort the Brothers to consider the operative side too, and its noble dignity (otherwise why we say for the good of mankind, and to the glory of the Great Architect of the Universe, besides for the good of this particular Lodge and for the good of the general institution?); I'd rather say that I deem I may give an useful contribution to define what operative means, and that I am eager to emphasize how productive and exquisitely initiatic such an approach may be.
Analogously, I cannot stand up and raise before a lodge and declare: since Freemasonry may be speculative, well then be learned that either Freemasonry shall be speculative, or it shall be not, and whoever shall not abide by speculative measures will be no true Mason but an outcast. Such a pretension would be simply unacceptable, puerile, wrong, insulting, and maybe even to be sanctioned.
Rather, I may say that I exhort the Brothers to consider the speculative side too, and its noble dignity; I'd rather say that I deem I may give an useful contribution to define what speculative means, and that I am eager to emphasize how productive and exquisitely initiatic such an approach may be.
Freemasonry can fly only waving both wings: the speculative wing and the operative wing, and when it waves one alone, then indeed we are out of Freemasonry, because if you wave the speculative one alone you undoubtedly end up in the most complete and narcissist mummification, which would embalm first precisely those who prognosticated to gain academic merits from it: a parnassian *entourage «all devoted to the philological toilette of the mysteriosophic text» (Henri Marrou * ), as outside it rains thermal bombs.
If you wave the operative wing only, you will undoubtedly end in the most threatening and devious malefaction, which will overwhelm first precisely those who intended to make some profit out of it: an entourage of Entered Crooks all devoted to the toilet of equity portfolios, as outside it keeps raining thermal bombs.
Freemasonry flies with two wings only: with one alone, it precipitates.
And I cannot tell, honestly, on which terrain it may hurt itself harder: whether on that where everybody ignores it (or mocks at it) for the good it does not and that yet it persists in believing it would have done, or on that ground where everybody knows it (or sues it) for the mistakes it makes and persists in acknowledging not.
Neither you may ignore, as it is taught by the very same diversification of the esoteric schools that did not produce only Confucianism as a political way to the soul but even tantrism as a sexual way to the spirit, that we are given (wo)men for whom the esoteric path, the ascension to the Holy Top, necessarily and exactly wants the confrontation with the living world, and the extroversion of one's forces: and that no such path can be made without the Temple.
Firstly, because to a Mason there exist neither a temple nor a place "outside" it: the initiatic tradition acknowledges a profane spiritual condition but does not acknowledge (on the contrary, it disavows) a topographical collocation outside the Temple: the true ceiling of the Masonic Temple is the starry dome, namely the sky itself: and where is a place without sky? You cannot hide yourself from my gaze: Secondly, such a path must be walked within the temple, by the temple, through the temple, and for the temple: because to such (wo)men is not offered, given their very same psychic asset and biography, a schism between inward evolution and outward exhibition that would allow them to comply with such a distinction that for others may result more feasible and more walkable.
And there is no soteriology, namely no path to salvation, that refuses to deliver itself to a man in order to grant itself with more gusto to another one: Salvation makes no favouritisms, and St. Paul was an inquisitor of Christians before being enlightened, and St. Augustine a libertine.
There is no soteriology that may be attained running one path only and abhorring all the rest: all roads lead to Rome, for there is no sky under which you cannot be redeemed.
Therefore denying operative Freemasonry to these (wo)men, does not mean denying to them operative Freemasonry, but it would mean denying to them exactly the speculative one: it would mean denying to them Freemasonry tout court; and beware: there cannot be (for this truly can't and mustn't and never shall be) a Masonic integralism, a fundamentalist purism that shall claim to single out elected Mason and damned Masons. It would be unacceptable even venting it.
And why then, regardless of all the rest, feeling oneself involved with operative Freemasonry should be a task extraneous to speculative Freemasonry? In fact"I do not believe it is any error occupying with my words a degree which many, with higher presumption, with their deeds occupied; because any error I could do by writing, can be fixed without damage, but those errors that have been done by those who operated, cannot be understood, if not with the wrecks of the empires." (Niccolò Machiavelli * , The Art of War)Judging a debate about operative freemasonry foreign to the speculative outlook, is wrong by principle well before delving deeper into the merit of the matter. The unacceptable stance is not that of those who, dealing with Operative Freemasonry, let those who entertain different inclinations to deal with Speculative Freemasonry: the unacceptable stance is that of those who, dealing with Speculative Freemasonry, want to prevent those who harbour different inclinations from dealing with the operative one: for this is the glitzy asymmetry in the discussed dynamics. Therefore we are not discussing of an overbearing attitude by those who, opting for an operative approach, may be suspected of hosting dictating and martial arrogance, but we are discussing of the attitude of those who, opting for a speculative approach, wantonly abandon themselves to the abstract furors and beguilements of the axioms - or maybe more simply to the sycophancy of a courtier who hopes of making him/herself increasingly welcome in the harem if he/she proves being worthy of it by increasingly demonstrating of being an eunuch.
An elevated use of conscience does not constitute an objective that we will attain without doubt, but something more demanding than that: it constitutes a prescription to endeavour always and indefatigably in the pursuit.
I may also fail, and commit all the mistakes that my human frailty and incompleteness exact from myself; but I cannot disengage myself from committing myself to the highest degree and in all circumstances to the sincere and assiduous attempt to respect this precept.
The very same presence of a ritual lets us ascertain the subsistence of such prescription. Often, many Entered Apprentices believe that we would have constituted ourselves as a mere set of acolytes busy logrolling.
In such a perspective, Freemasonry would be undistinguishable from whatever other network of acquaintances, such as those that may ripe in a professional environment or by the agency of a watchful public relations campaign. Yet the latter would reveal themselves as infinitely more promising than any Freemasonry and, if such would have been the purpose, infinitely less hypocritical: first of all they would grant you a much faster collection of your salary and profits, and besides they would not compel the participants to go periodically to a Temple, maybe in the outskirts of the city, in order to attend a ceremony as if it would have been a subpoena, whose ritual would appear as much sophisticated as it would be frigid and pointless; and they would not compel you to listen to the reading of works in the Lodge whose unique goal would have been, in this perspective, that of narcotizing the bystanders or that of carrying out an astute diversion meant to cover up the allegedly true and undeclared quests of the Masonic Institution.
This would immediately vilify the ethic standing of all the Masons in the temple, included those who may have been in it for over thirty years, abasing it to that of the despicable comedian or of the pathetic goofball.
You don't realize that the very same presence of a ritual constitutes a patent, evident, explosive declaration concerning the identity and the yearning of Freemasonry: a yearning to grandness.
Nobody wants to be a banal profiteer: not only because a community where statistically (at least in Europe) medical doctors sweepingly predominate is a community where at most you logroll radiographies, but most of all because in order to logroll you need no ritual, but it suffices (and it abundantly does) to party at someone's house. Freemasonry wants to be much more than that. How can't you understand this immediately? One needs to be very myopic, or blind indeed: and not at all an all-seeing as a soaring eagle as one believes to be when one gets persuaded that s/he would have intuited the shadows of unconfessed secrets under the ritual carpets and would have apprehended many vipers rustling among the pillars.
Every (I want to confer rhetoric emphasis for the sake of the impact, paying the price of employing an "every" where a "few" ought to have been) petitioner believes this,
The difference and discriminating edge between a promising Entered Apprentice and an Entered Apprentice who will be sleeping soon after he is raised Master Mason (1) belongs here: there are those wo realize the puerile unacceptableness of such expectations and the insufficiencies of such a setting, and by coping with this issue they succeed in framing it within a higher project whose breadth, synergies, and feedbacks are greater; and there are others that, instead, never maturate this awareness and obstinate themselves to believe that Freemasonry must necessarily coincide with the pusillanimity of their vision.
Furthering no longer with any subsequent elaboration this idea that naively presents itself to their minds, they remain rather puzzled when they notice that this idea, in the Temple, isn't substantiated with any actual phenomenology in the least: and how could it substantiate itself, since it does not exist?
Therefore they deduce that this phenomenology must be there anyway, but (and in this "but" would be the "brilliant brainwave") sheltered somewhere, maybe hidden in the cryptocratic inlet of some higher degree, or in the recesses of some ambulatory, or in "levels" at all times fantasized about and at all times never met, and that in order to be found they simply ought to be sniped out from their den: thence comes also the idea of "not to speak, awaiting to understand better" - whereas by "better" it is meant waiting for a sign that would confirm to them that the worst their squalor is capable of can be shared and that therefore from the onanist soliloquy they might be promoted to the collective orgy of a shared pettiness, for this is what they call "better". A bankruptcy strategy that shall leave them unsatisfied forever: in fact, there is a round nothing to be "understood", and they will stay without anything to say and awaiting to be able to say it and to be able to understand it (either not at all or "better") for a very long time...
You can't solve a riddle that doesn't exist.
And as far as "secret" and "secrecy" are concerned, I want to say this. It is not Masons that embrace secrecy: in fact, there is no secret; it is secrecy that embraces them, as sort of unavoidable mythological an implication. It is not correct to say that Masons promote secrecy: they endure it. Or, if you like, it is not a predilection of the Masons, but their complication.
It is not a matter of victimization, it is a matter of fatality. Secrecy comes to the Mason as a self imposing physiological element, as a metabolite necessarily rooted in the elected fabric.
In this sense, secrecy holds no real object: it is an empty bag, whose value resides in having a mythological range, and not a literal one.
This is why the key of the Secret Master in the Scottish Rite is broken (more: it is closed within an urn): there is nothing mysterious to be open with it... The task of the Master Mason is not that of remolding it: the urn is locked, and you cannot draw the key that unlocks it, if the key that unlocks the urn, is sealed within the locked urn - and it is broken too.
The task of the Mason is precisely that of managing the key exactly as it is being delivered to him/her. It is something to be treasured or to be contemplated, not to be pried.
This is why masons are the first to ignore what this notorious secret could be, and profanes speculate about it a great deal more than it would deserve, till the point they often deem that an outsider might know better about "real" Freemasonry than an insider does, when the latter argues that there is no actual secret.
And it is still for the same reasons that some Masons themselves may be ensnared into this trap, and may start prancing as owners of a Churchillian "aenigma wrapped in a mystery": because they are the first to understand it not, for it is very far from yielding to them: in fact it could not, for it's a secrecy without secret.
And those among us who could be comedians enough to feel the need to flaunt themselves with a non existent secret in order to feed and emend the scarce commodity of their own self reliance and in order to believe themselves big shots before the mirrors of their own houses, or maybe in order to make the others believe they would possess a social prestige they have not by sprinkling around themselves the aura of the man initiated to an unavowable secret that they themselves know not, deserve nothing less than the full frontal of this epitaph by Vauvenargues * :«Their secrets are such only because they are so miserable that they wouldn't be worth of being recounted to anyone»It is the very same presence of a ritual that reveals a prescription to an elevated use of conscience. Otherwise, for what reason the mother lodges are called Grande Oriente in Latin countries, and Grand Lodge in the Anglo-Saxon ones? Because they do not house banal (wo)men, but (wo)men that have decided to opt for a higher attempt: that of climbing Grandness, and give a try to Glory.
There is nothing merely rhetorical in the Masonic significance of such words, for the task of the Obedience is Promethean and its pioneering dimensions can never grow boring as long as they keep being dispatched onto the outpost, to preside the farthest promontory of the peninsula, as long as they keep being an avant garde pushed upon the most dangerous and remotest boundary of the possible. It is difficult to get bored when you are a platoon of marines sent to carry out an impossible mission that notwithstanding could be laden with laurels; it is instead very likely to get bored when you are underused paratroopers, and the enemy to kill is time before it eventually kills the all of us anyway.
It is for this kind of mobilizations that operative Freemasonry is electively suited; given its intrinsic vocation to grandness, it is inherently the structure one could resort to when one needs to pursue strategic objectives that are grand, noble and impervious, and that commit some among the finest and most elevated faculties of the human conscience and of its intellectual resources. You may acknowledge we do not live up to this task, but you can not claim that such wouldn't have been the task.
If you want to be a business man, you don't want to be a Mason for that; and if you want to be a rigger and a mason, it means you have chosen not to be a mason.
For in such case indeed there subsists a dichotomy: either it shall be grand, or it shall be not at all. In fact for this, for narrow minded chores, for a lousy man's job unfit to coordinate or to conceive a Vision, or for men who are by now completely unable to have faith in anything, there is no need for a Freemasonry if not in the ward of the tragicomic equivocations.
In the drama of a planet still populated with shaken nations, there cannot be a Masonic answer of a philanthropic kind for every problem in the world. It would be unrealistic to postulate it, it would be utopian to prospect it, and there isn't enough wealth to afford it. Signifying philanthropy in a merely econometric key belongs to a reductionist approach, and does not betray one's determination to solve problems, but one's abdication from coping with them indeed. The pacification of your conscience does not coincide with the salvation of your soul.
There will be a better philanthropy. Either it shall be grand, or it shall not be at all: honestly, I can see nothing counter-initiatic in optimizing your egotic intention so to make it no longer a parasite but a function of a wider context, a function of a windfall effect of welfare. Egoism must be neither feared nor banned: it must be exploited.
That all the Grand Lodges of the world may converge around an operative document and a common project does not alter the nature of the Universal Freemasonry (and in the least for the benefit of the very few), but it exalts it (and certainly for the benefit of all).
Using the capillary distribution of the lodges all around the world, enabling them to funnel redistribution under the perspective of free market and commonwealth and democracy, empowering them to convey all this in those countries that are permanently on the brim of disaster and of civil war exactly because they are alien from such principles and balances, and act so that it may be possible that within the lodges may ripe and grow the autochthonous leaderships and middle classes of other countries, never seemed to me as a task unworthy of white gloves.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the true monkey business would not be that between hypothetical (and indeed impossible) profits of lodges, so that one would sell goods (which ones?) and would cash money and another would buy goods and cash conditioning, but that between a world that produces democracy and cashes geopolitical stability and a world that acquires democracy and cashes common welfare rather than thermal bombs, and that provides its sons and daughters with the perspective of gaining fruits from a fertile soil with the noble labour of their arms rather than that of eradicating male and female eyes out of their sockets with the sadism of a psychopathology reared in one hundred years of dictatorship.
Honestly, I can't demonize profit when its characteristic isn't that of reeking, but that of shining: of Glory, Grandness & Geometry.«A few theologians say that the divine emperor Antonine was not virtuous; that he was a stubborn Stoic who, not content with commanding men, wished further to be esteemed by them; that he attributed to himself the good he did to the human race; that all his life he was just, laborious, beneficent through vanity, and that he only deceived men through his virtues. But then: "My God!" I exclaim, "Give us more often rogues like him!"» (Voltaire * )Bertrand Russell * wrote about Talleyrand * that he was a man who could be bribed only into making the decisions he had already made: the luciferin Grandness of the intellect does not consist in the program of those who intend to manipulate the ideal in order to make it subservient to the egoistical exigencies of the particular, but in the program of those who intend to manipulate the egoistical instances in order to make them subservient to the triumph of the ideal - which sounds very much like "Les Liaisons Dangereuses", don't you think so too?
This is not stated because it would have been auspicated that the footing of the operative Mason ought to be such, but only with the purpose of clarifying, in a sense completely hostile to every cynicism and to their racing in the refinery of exploitations, that deviousness by deviousness, narcissism by narcissism and mephistophelean by mephistophelean, this reversal of perspective and prejudice will always sit one step above their intrigues and machinations: it will always be the mephistophelean+0.1This text is protected by Copyright and cannot be reproduced, either in totality or in part, without the consent of the author. Also derivative works cannot be produced without the consent of the author.
Minor excerpts may be quoted as long as a clearly readable link leading to this file is put in place soon after or soon before the quotation. Only the author has the right to reproduce in its totality this work on other servers.
If the text includes external snippets, you may hide their borders (useful for codes): click here
This subscriber has snippets too: Read the snippets. Shoutbox: 103reviews: 153Visitors: 12,629 Overall visits to all the topics: 665,699 Daily average(Calculated from the website subscription day): 273.05Optional sorting commands: Normal order: click here Order by amount of visits: click here Order by most recently commented (attention: this will exclude from the returned results all the entries that have no comment): click here Order by highest amount of comments (attention: this will exclude from the returned results all the entries that have no comment): click here Order by vote (attention: this may exclude from the returned results all the entries that have no votes): click here Current order: normalShowing topics: 1, 10 Available total (with or without comments): 57
List topics by this author without this topic text: click here Other topics available for this author: click on any title below to view the complete item:
There is a max limit to the amount of comments that can be held by a page, limit above which any new comment that is inserted will determine the deletion of the older comment in the queue. The max amount of comments that can be inserted is of: 100. To perform this operation it is necessary to be Full Poster members. If you are a member, insert your Identification Number and Password in the proper fields, and then proceed: